Search

Objectives: There is conflicting evidence regarding the outcomes of acute stroke patients who present to hospital within normal working hours ('in-hours') compared with the 'out-of-hours' period. This study aimed to assess the effect of time of stroke presentation on outcomes within the Irish context, to inform national stroke service delivery. Materials and methods: A secondary analysis of data from the Irish National Audit of Stroke (INAS) from Jan 2016 to Dec 2019 was carried out. Patient and process outcomes were assessed for patients presenting 'in-hours' (8:00–17:00 Monday-Friday) compared with 'out-of-hours' (all other times). Results: Data on arrival time were available for 13,996 patients (male 56.2%; mean age 72.5 years), of which 55.7% presented 'out-of-hours'. In hospital mortality was significantly lower among those admitted 'in-hours' (11.3%, n = 534) compared with 'out-of-hours' (12.8%, n = 749); (adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) 0.82; 95% Confidence Interval CI [95% CI] 0.72–0.89). Poor functional outcome at discharge (Modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) was also significantly lower in those presenting 'in-hours' (adjusted OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68–0.91). In patients receiving thrombolysis, mean door to needle time was shorter for 'in-hours' presentation at 55.8 mins (n = 562; SD 35.43 mins), compared with 'out-of-hours' presentation at 80.5 mins (n = 736; SD 38.55 mins, p <.001). Conclusion: More than half of stroke patients in Ireland present 'out-of-hours' and these presentations are associated with a higher mortality and a lower odds of functional independence at discharge. It is imperative that stroke pathways consider the 24 hour period to ensure the delivery of effective stroke care, and modification of 'out-of-hours' stroke care is required to improve overall outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recruitment and retention of doctors is a priority for the Irish healthcare service, with many leaving to work in regions with more favourable conditions. Aligning flexible training options with other jurisdictions may be an effective means of improving working conditions. We sought to assess possible improvements to the existing system and to review barriers to flexible training. We carried out a survey using 'Survey Monkey' and disseminated it to 1557 basic specialist (BST) and higher specialist trainee (HST) doctors of the Institute of Medicine, 3500 members of the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO), and across social media. There were 854 respondents; 303 (35.5%) BST, 352 (41.2%) HST, 125 (14.6%) non-training doctors, unknown, n = 74. The response rate was approximately 15–23%. Non-consultant doctors identified a preference for access to flexible training (n = 849, 99.4%), with 82.2 of doctors reporting that they would consider applying (n = 702). Most (92.4%) considered the current provision of 16 whole-time equivalent positions as inadequate (n = 789). Of doctors who would not apply for flexible training, themes identified included a perceived negative impact on their career, not meeting eligibility criteria, prolonged training, and salary implications. Suggestions for improving the system included expanding the number of places available, removing eligibility criteria, job sharing options, and the provision of regional training schemes. Access to flexible training should be a priority for the healthcare service, which may enhance recruitment and retention. A majority of our sample of non-consultant doctors identified a preference for access to flexible training options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The benefits of aspirin for primary prevention of stroke are uncertain. Methods: We performed a cumulative meta-analysis of trials investigating aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a focus on stroke. We assessed the effects of aspirin on non-fatal stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, major gastrointestinal bleeding, and an analysis of net clinical effect, in populations without a history of clinical or subclinical cardiovascular disease. Summary of review results: Among 11 trials (157,054 participants), aspirin was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in non-fatal stroke (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.04) but was associated with an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke (odds ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.56). Aspirin was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.03) or cardiovascular mortality (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.03). Aspirin was associated with a reduction in non-fatal myocardial infarction (odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.94) and an increased risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.43 to 2.35). Using equal weighting for non-fatal events and major bleeding, we observed no net clinical benefit with aspirin use for primary prevention. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis reports no benefit of aspirin for primary stroke prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]